Europa Agriculture – Control of foot-and-mouth disease – Directive 85/511/EEC – Directive 90/425/EEC- Examinations to detect foot-and mouth-disease carried out by a laboratory not listed in the annex to Directive 85/511/EEC – National authorities-? discretion – Principle of proportionality – Principle of respect for the rights of the defence.
C-28/05, [2006] EUECJ C-28/05
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242571
The claimants sought to re-open their appeal saying that the respondent department had failed properly to describe the workings of the clawback scheme under which its claim had been made.
Held: A DEFRA official had provided materially incorrect information to the court in a witness statement. The judgment should be set aside.
Mr Justice Moses Lord Justice Dyson Lady Justice Smith
[2006] EWCA Civ 699
England and Wales
See Also – Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 20-Dec-2002
. .
Now set aside – Regina on the Application of Feakins v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 4-Nov-2003
The applicant farmer had substantial volumes of potentially contaminated carcasses on his land. The respondent derogated from the European regulations which would have arranged for the disposal of the carcasses. The respondent challenged the . .
See Also – Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Feakins and Another CA 6-Apr-2006
. .
Cited – Bancoult, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) SC 29-Jun-2016
Undisclosed Matter inadequate to revisit decision
The claimant sought to have set aside a decision of the House of Lords as to the validity of the 2004 Order, saying that it had been based on a failure by the defendant properly to disclose matters it was under a duty of candour to disclose.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242360
ECJ Protection of the European Communities- financial interests – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Repayment of Community aid – Retroactive application of less severe administrative penalties.
[2006] EUECJ C-286/05
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241478
Second succession under 1986 Act – Land agent failing to give correct notices.
Andrew Baker J
[2019] EWHC 1427 (QB)
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638224
[2019] EWCA Civ 888
England and Wales
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.637982
ECJ Agriculture – Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87- Export refunds – Sanction applied following a decision to recover a refund that has become final – Possibility of re-examining the decision imposing a sanction.
C-274/04, [2006] EUECJ C-274/04
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240144
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Mr Justice Moses
[2005] EWCA Civ 1658
England and Wales
See Also – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
See Also – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238637
The claimant sought to enforce European agricultural quality standards against the defendant, who was selling grapes in breach of the European Directive.
Held: The defendants were in breach, but the Directive did not give the claimants a direct right to enforce it. The issue was referred to the European Court.
Mummery LJ
[1999] EWCA Civ 1591
England and Wales
Appeal from – Antonio Munoz Y Cia S A , Superior Fruticola S A v Frumar Limited, Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited PatC 26-Mar-1999
European legislation which controlled the naming and use of patented grape varieties did not provide for actions directly between the owner of the mark and an infringer. The purpose of the legislation was consumer protection achieved in other ways. . .
Appeal to – Antonio Munoz Y Cia S A , Superior Fruticola S A v Frumar Limited, Redbridge Produce Marketing Limited PatC 26-Mar-1999
European legislation which controlled the naming and use of patented grape varieties did not provide for actions directly between the owner of the mark and an infringer. The purpose of the legislation was consumer protection achieved in other ways. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.146506
The tenancy was of an agricultural holding, with protection under the 1986 Act. It had 350 acres of pasture, and two farmhouses. The tenants covenanted not to use the holding for any purpose other than agriculture, to farm it in accordance with the rules of good husbandry and personally to reside in the farmhouses. They fell into arrears of rent; and, having complied with the pre-requisites set by the Act of 1986, the landlords served a notice to quit.
Held: A notice to quit an agricultural holding did not need to include the notice of eviction rights required for a domestic tenancy, even though the holding consisted in part of a dwelling. ‘Premises let as an agricultural holding, even if there is a dwelling upon the holding, do not constitute premises let as a dwelling for the purposes of s 5 of the Act. I accept the submission that the ‘premises’ are the subject matter of the letting, that is the entire acreage, but they are let as an agricultural holding and not as a dwelling. The subject matter of the letting includes a dwelling but I cannot read the section as if it used the expression ‘premises which include a dwelling’ or ‘any dwelling house let as a part of premises’.However that did not mean that such tenancies had the protection given by the 1977 Act.
Pill LJ, Judge LJ
Gazette 11-Jun-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 1707, [1998] 1 WLR 230
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, Protection from Eviction Act 1977 5
England and Wales
Cited – Maunsell v Olins HL 1975
The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .
Cited – Dellhold Estates (UK) Pty Ltd v Lindsey Trading Properties Inc 1994
The word ‘premises’ in s 46(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 means the subject matter of the letting and the section applied to an agricultural holding which included a dwelling house. S 48 of the Act was governed by s 46(1) which applied it . .
Cited – Regina v Yuthiwattana CACD 1984
The defendant appealed against his convictions under the 1977 Act.
Held: Under section 1(2) the deprivation of occupation for one day was insufficient. To constitute an offence, the deprivation had to take the character of an eviction. . .
Cited – Russell v Booker CA 1982
The leased premises consisted of a dwelling house and agricultural land which had constituted an agricultural holding. The tenant alleged that the original agreement had been superceded by a subsequent contract which had the effect of moving the . .
Distinguished – Holford Investments Ltd v Lambert 1982
. .
Cited – Pirabakaran v Patel and Another CA 26-May-2006
The landlord had wanted possession. The tenant said that the landlord had been harassing him. The landlord said that the tenancy was a mixed residential and business tenancy and that the 1977 Act did not apply.
Held: The 1977 Act applied. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.142103
Parties challenged the legality of a levy imposed by the defendant for the purposes of supporting the sea food industry. They said that a levy imposed on fish products imported to the UK was beyond the powers given by the 1981 Act, and was contrary to EU law.
Held: The challenge was dismissed as to both arguments.
Hamblen J
[2009] EWHC 1721 (QB), [2010] 1 CMLR 12
Fisheries Act 1981, Sea Fish Industry Authority (Levy) Regulations 1995
England and Wales
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Appeal from – Bloomsbury International Ltd and Others v The Sea Fish Industry Authority and Another CA 18-Mar-2010
The company, importers of fish, challenged the lawfulness of Regulations which imposed a levy requiring them to contribute to the training of UK fishermen.
Held: The company’s appeal succeeded. . .
At first instance – Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.361473
The claimants, the Commissioners and the County Council, sought declarations to establish their right to build a marina on parts of the foreshore currently used for commercial mussel fishing. Section 40 of the 1868 Act authorised ministers to make orders conferring exclusive rights of several oyster and mussel fishery on ‘grantees’, defined as ‘the persons obtaining the order’.
Held:
Carnwath LJ said: ‘Where an Act has been interpreted in a particular way without dissent over a long period, those interested should be able to continue to order their affairs on that basis without the risk of being upset by a novel approach. That applies particularly in a relatively esoteric area of the law such as the present, in relation to which cases may rarely come before the courts, and the established practice is the only guide for operators and their advisers.’
and ‘The present statutory context provides an unusually strong, and in my view fully sufficient, basis for having regard to the later history. The Act itself contained a procedure for enabling any principal objections to the form of an order to be settled by Parliament itself. In that respect, to borrow Lord Nicholls’ phrase in the Jackson case, the involvement of the legislature has gone ‘much deeper’ than in most of the cases in the books. In my view that history points a clear way to the resolution of the ambiguity in the 1868 statute, in so far as that is left in doubt by the context and purpose of the statute itself.’
‘ . . the commissioners recognised the possible ambiguity in the 1868 Act, and gave a clear indication as to how it should be resolved. They found support, as I have done, in the ordinary incidence of a ‘several fishery’ and also in the specific provision in s.29 for the establishment of a ‘body corporate’. By approving the Bill in the form recommended by them, Parliament can arguably be taken, at least for the future, as impliedly endorsing the reasoning of the report.’
Pill LJ added: ‘Carnwath LJ has described the subsequent legislative events. I agree with him that, when construing section 40, the present statutory context provides an unusually strong basis for having regard to the later history. The legislature has subsequently been involved both in approving orders under the 1868 Act, as its section 38 originally required, and in passing the 1967 Act with knowledge of the many extant orders under the earlier statute, including the 1962 Order at issue in this case. I agree with Carnwath LJ’s analysis of the Law Commission report and its effects.’
Pill, Carnwath, Lawrence Collins LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 94, [2009] NPC 28, [2009] 3 WLR 813, [2009] 3 All ER 1110, [2010] QB 163
England and Wales
Appeal from – Isle of Anglesey County Council and Another v Welsh Ministers and others QBD 6-May-2008
Challenge to the grant of planning permission to create a marina in an area designated as a mussel fishery. . .
Cited – British Pregnancy Advisory Service v Secretary of State for Health Admn 14-Feb-2011
The claimant sought a declaration that the administration of an abortifacient drug was not ‘any treatment for the termination of pregnancy’ for the purposes of section 1 of the 1967 Act, allowing the piloting and possible adoption of early medical . .
Cited – Bloomsbury International Ltd v Sea Fish Industry Authority and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SC 15-Jun-2011
The 1995 Regulations imposed a levy on fish both caught and first landed in the UK and also on imported fish products. The claimants, importers challenged the validity of the latter charges, saying that they went beyond the power given by the 1981 . .
Cited – Doogan and Another v NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board SCS 24-Apr-2013
(Extra Division, Inner House) The reclaimers, Roman Catholic midwives working on a labour ward as co-ordinators, sought to assert a right of conscientious objection under the 1967 Act. The respondents said that only those directly involved in the . .
Cited – British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Admn 5-Jun-2019
Abortion Time Limit statement was correct.
The Court considered ‘ the correct interpretation of the words, ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week’ in s.1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 ‘ The guidance was challenged as the calculations. The date of the beginning of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.301650
Europa Judgment annulling a decision of the Commission reducing the amount of Community financial aid – Methods of execution – Action for failure to act – No need to adjudicate – Action for damages
T-276/03, [2006] EUECJ T-276/03
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238142
ECJ Directive 70/458/EEC – Marketing of vegetable seed – Article 2 – Directive 92/33/EEC – Marketing of vegetable propagating and planting material other than seed – Annex II – Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species – National legislation permitting only varieties of shallots produced by vegetative propagation to be marketed as ‘shallots’ – Article 28 EC – Consumer protection
[2009] 1 CMLR 22, [2006] ECR I-245, [2006] EUECJ C-147/04, [2006] EUECJ C-147/04
Directive 70/458/CEE, Directive 92/33/CEE
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237641
[2005] EWCA Civ 1465
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236368
ECJ (Agriculture) Export refunds – Condition for grant – Beef and veal – Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 – Bovine spongiform encephalopathy – Export ban – Sound and fair marketable quality – Export declaration – National application for a payment – Sanction.
C-309/04, [2005] EUECJ C-309/04
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235850
Europa (Agriculture) Animal health and public health requirements – Composite feedingstuffs for animals – Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product – Infringement of the principle of proportionality.
C-12/04, [2005] EUECJ C-12/04
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235852
Europa Animal health and public health requirements – Composite feedingstuffs for animals – Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product – Infringement of the principle of proportionality.
C-11/04, [2005] EUECJ C-11/04
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235851
Europa (Agriculture) Animal health and public health requirements -? Composite feedingstuffs for animals -? Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product -? Infringement of the principle of proportionality.
C-453/03, [2005] EUECJ C-453/03
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235842
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Free movement of agricultural products – Directive 89/662/EEC – Article 5 – Veterinary checks in the Member State of destination of the goods – National system of prior notification imposed on importers of certain products of animal origin from other Member States.
C-111/03, [2005] EUECJ C-111/03
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231249
[2001] EWCA Civ 841
England and Wales
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.218159
ECJ Authorisation for the placing of plant protection and biocidal products on the market – Directive 91/414/EEC – Article 8 – Directive 98/8/EC – Article 16 – Power of Member States during the transitional periodv
[2005] EUECJ C-316/04, ECLI:EU:C:2005:678
Directive 91/414/EEC 8, Directive 98/8/EC 16
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234707
ECJ FEOGA – Apurement des comptes – Decision 2003/364/CE – Cultures arables – Controles sur place – Recuperation des aides versees pour des surfaces ineligibles – Fausses declarations.
[2005] EUECJ C-307/03
European
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234706
Action against a solicitor for alleged negligence.
Jack J
[2006] PNLR 94, [2005] EWHC 1931 (QB)
England and Wales
Cited – The Football League Ltd v Edge Ellison (A Firm) ChD 23-Jun-2006
The claimants operated football leagues, and asked the defendant solicitors to act in negotiating the sale of television rights to ONdigital. The broadcasts went ahead, but no guarantees were taken for the contract. The claimants alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230120
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Meaning of ‘waste’ – Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC – Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment – Directive 80/68/EEC – Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances – Directive 91/271/EEC – Urban waste water treatment – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Pollution caused by a pig farm.
C-416/02, [2005] EUECJ C-416/02
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229974
The appellant land-owner had bought it with an established business selling by retail from it vegetables and fruits and flowers grown on the land. He made minor alterations to the shop and began to sell also a number of oranges bananas and lemons which he had imported. This amounted to some 10% of his total sales. An enforcement notice was served as to these new sales, the authority saying that this was a change of use requiring permission, and a discontinuance of the retail shop. On reference, the Minister took the view that the mode of use of the building before the purchase was merely incidental to its use as a nursery, but that the change by addition of the sale of imported produce changed the character of the use amounting to a material change within section 12(1). Permission had been required and had been properly refused. The land owner appealed.
Held: When asking whether a material change had occurred, the proper unit for consideration was the land and building as a whole. However, a change in the character of an ancillary use might amount to a material change in the use of the land as a whole.
The Minister had decided that the original and primary use was for agriculture with only an incidental use for the sale of produce from the land. That decision was correct, and he was entitled to conclude from it that the addition of sales of imported produce amounted to a change in the character of use. The change could not be disregarded as de minimis.
The court gave the opinion that had the building been considered in isolation, it would have had a retail shop use and it would have been arguable that a new permission would not have been required.
(1967) 18 PCR 514, (1967) 111 Sol Jo 559, (1967) LGR 495, (1967) 203 EG 688
Town and Country Planning Act 1962 12(1) Part III
England and Wales
Cited – Millington v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and Regions v Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council CA 25-Jun-1999
The fact that a new product was made on agricultural land from produce grown elsewhere on the land did not make that production process non-agricultural. The making of wine is capable of being agricultural use, and being thus free from planning . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229042
Appeal by DEFRA against an order declaring unlawful part of the control arrangements operated by the PSD with regard to the parallel import of plant protection products.
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Mantell, And, Lord Justice Latham
[2001] EWCA Civ 1656, [2002] Eu LR 24, [2002] 1 CMLR 8
England and Wales
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.166827
ECJ Sixth Directive – Article 25 – Common flat-rate scheme for farmers – Grant of hunting licences within the framework of a municipal forestry undertaking – Concept of ‘agricultural service’.
C-43/04, [2005] EUECJ C-43/04
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225317
ECJ Common organization of the markets – Milk and milk products – Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 – National scheme under which dairies withhold deductions from the price payable to dairy farmers or pay price supplements to them according to the quality of the milk supplied – Incompatibility
C-283/03, [2005] EUECJ C-283/03, [2005] ECR I-4255
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225315
(Agriculture) Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Directive 1999/105 / EC – Marketing of forest reproductive material – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period
ECLI:EU:C:2005:117, [2005] EUECJ C-383/04
European
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222949
ECJ Common organisation of the markets – Bananas – Action for compensation – Regulation No 2362/98 – Agreement establishing the WTO and annexed agreements – Recommendations and rulings of the dispute settlement body of the WTO
T-19/01, [2005] EUECJ T-19/01, ECLI:EU:T:2005:31
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222622
Cereals – Import regime – Community tariff quota for barley for malting – Discrimination
C-126/04, [2005] EUECJ C-126/04
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221477
An agricultural tenancy was varied by the addition of a small plot of land. The tenant argued that this led to a postponement of the review under the Act. The landlord appealed.
Held: The addition of a plot could not properly be seen as a variation of the boundaries, but the description of the land in the tenancy could properly be seen as one of its terms, and a small variation of the terms did not call into effect paragraph 4(1).
Neuberger J
Times 30-Oct-2002, Gazette 14-Nov-2002, [2002] EWHC 2116 (CH), [2003] 1 WLR 75
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Sch2 Para 4(1) 6
England and Wales
Appealed to – Ministry of Defence v Spencer and Another CA 22-May-2003
The parties had varied the agricultural tenancy. A small parcel had been added, and the rent increased to reflect only that additional land. The tenant claimed that, under the Act, this operated to skip the next rent review.
Held: The phrase . .
Appeal from – Ministry of Defence v Spencer and Another CA 22-May-2003
The parties had varied the agricultural tenancy. A small parcel had been added, and the rent increased to reflect only that additional land. The tenant claimed that, under the Act, this operated to skip the next rent review.
Held: The phrase . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.177840
The testator occupied farmland and buildings. He was helped in maintaining the farm by his son, but gave the land to his grandchildren by his will. The son claimed to have been granted an informal written agricultural tenancy by his father before his death.
Held: The arrangement was not intended to create legal relations, and no tenancy was created. The agreement was sufficient to satisfy section 52, but in construing it, the court had to allow for the fact that the deceased had placed particular trust and confidence in the son, and a presumption of undue influence arose. The claimant had not displaced that presumption, and the tenancy agreement was set aside.
Mr Launcelot Henderson QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the division
Gazette 03-Oct-2002
England and Wales
Cited – Walsh v Lonsdale CA 1882
Lonsdale purported to grant to Walsh a seven year lease with rent payable in advance. The lease was not embodied in a deed, and when Walsh went into possession, an annual tenancy with rent payable in arrear was created. Walsh did not pay in advance, . .
Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2); Barclays Bank plc v Harris; Midland Bank plc v Wallace, etc HL 11-Oct-2001
Wives had charged the family homes to secure their husband’s business borrowings, and now resisted possession orders, claiming undue influence.
Held: Undue influence is an equitable protection created to undo the effect of excess influence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.177316
In an action by the burgh of Inverness and others for declarator of exclusive right of salmon fishing in a part of the river Ness from both banks from a stone C to the sea, the pursuers founded on a Crown title granted in 1591 to the town of Inverness, which conveyed the water of Ness and all partes and each bank with the whole salmon and other fishings, including the fishings in dispute. The defender was proprietor of the lands of Holme on the south bank, which lay partly above and partly below the said stone. His title was a Crown charter in favour of the Earl of Moray, granted in 1566, which conveyed half of the lands of Holme, with the salmon and other fishings ‘pertaining’ to the same. The defender held the other half of the lands of Holme under a title from Fraser of Balnain, which made no mention of fishings. The disputed part of the fishings was below the said stone, and was opposite part of the lands held by the Earl of Moray; the upper part of the fishings was not in dispute, and lay partly opposite the Earl of Moray’s feu and partly opposite Fraser’s feu. Under his title from Lord Moray the defender claimed a joint right of salmon fishing along with the pursuers in the Ness ex adverso of Holme below the stone C. It was proved that from 1840 to 1843 the lower half of the Holme fishings and the town fishings were let to the same tenant; in 1843 the defender had been unsuccessful in an attempt to interdict the tenant of the town fishings from fishing on the Holme side of the river. It appeared from the evidence in the interdict that one of the witnesses deponed that the defender’s predecessor had pointed out the stone C as the boundary of the witness’s tenancy; since 1843 the defender had granted successive leases of the Holme fishings, and that the tenants had unchallenged fished salmon with net and coble down to 1853, and since then with rod and line, to the lower boundary of Holme.
[1890] UKHL 393
Scotland
Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.636728
Fisheries Policy – Failure to fulfill obligations – Fishing – Conservation and management of resources – fishing activities – Control measure
[2004] EUECJ C-42/03
European
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220005
Directive 90/642/EEC – Maximum levels for pesticide residues – Vine leaves
[2004] EUECJ C-398/03
European
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220006
ECJ Animal health – Production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products – Mixture made of sugar, cocoa and skimmed milk powder, imported from Aruba
C-124/03, [2004] EUECJ C-124/03
European
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219051
The claimant was a tenant of agricultural land. He sought repairs, and served a notice on the executors of the now deceased landlord, but only later were letters of administration granted to the defendants. The judge had found the service of the notice good, because he had no notice of whom the notice could be served upon.
Held: It was impossible to serve a notice on someone who was a former agent of a former landlord.
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Longmore Lindsay The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay
[2004] EWCA Civ 1367, Times 03-Nov-2004
Agriculture (Maintenance, Repair, etc.) Regulations 1973, Agricultural Holdings Act 1986
England and Wales
Cited – Egerton v Rutter CA 1951
A tenant of an agricultural holding died intestate leaving her son and daughter in actual possession. Almost two months after the tenant’s death and before any Grant of Letters of Administration the landlord served a notice to quit addressed to the . .
Cited – Wilbraham v Colclough and others 1952
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218849
The applicants were farmers. Their cattle were destroyed after contracting foot and mouth disease. Their land was used for the burning of the carcasses of their animals, and of animals from neighbouring farms. They were compensated inter alia for the use of their land for burning the carcasses of their neighbours, but not their own animals.
Held: The Act did not contain a clear express power to compel the use of land for burning, but one was properly inferred. There was no obligation to pay compensation for the use of the claimants’ land for the burning of their own animal carcasses.
Judge Jack Beatson, QC
Times 22-Apr-2002, [2002] EWHC 831 Admin
Animal Health Act 1981 31 34(2) Sch 3
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council, ex parte McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd HL 14-Nov-1991
A Local Authority was not able to impose charge for inquiries as to speculative developments and similar proposals, or for consultations, and pre-planning advice. There was no statutory authority for such a charge, and it was therefore unlawful and . .
Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.170067
The market in milk quotas
Kennedy, May LJJ, Jackson J
[2002] EWCA Civ 864
England and Wales
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217209
(Judgment) Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 – Common organisation of the market for milk and milk products – Commission decision prohibiting aid to acquire milk quotas
C-173/02, [2004] EUECJ C-173/02
European
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216590
ECJ Plant varieties – System of protection – Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 – Use by farmers of the product of the harvest – Suppliers of processing services – Obligation to provide information to the holder of the Community right
[2004] EUECJ C-336/02
European
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216594
The tenant farmer served two notices both referring the landlord’s notice to quit to arbitration (s28(4)) and also a counter-notice (s28(2)). The landlord said he could not serve both and had not identified which he wished to proceed upon. No referral in fact took place.
Held: The legislation contemplated only one decision about the tenancy, but the provisions could not be read to limit the tenant to only one way forward. They had simply not foreseen the tenant’s choice. Neither by itself began proceedings, that was for the landlord. Two sets of proceedings should not be allowed to go ahead, and a tenant’s preference for arbitration would be given sway, but the choice given to the landlord was not burdensome.
Leveson J
Times 08-Apr-2005, [2005] EWHC 462 (Admin)
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 28(2), Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954 6(2)
England and Wales
Cited – Clegg v Fraser 1982
The court considered at what level a point of law would justify reference from an arbitration to the High Court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.223857
ECJ 1. The undertakings to be given by dairies pursuant to Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation No 2793/77 on detailed rules of application for granting special aid for skimmed milk for use as feed for animals other than young calves form part of the system of monitoring and proof which had to be set up so as to ensure the smooth operation of the aid scheme . Since those requirements form part of the detailed rules for the application of the system of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder produced in the Community and used as animal feed, the Commission was empowered to impose them under Article 10(3 ) of Regulation No 804/68 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products.
2. The amendment made by Regulation No 188/83 to Article 4 of Regulation No 2793/77, which mitigates the penalty attaching to failure by farmers to comply with the time-limit for submission of the statement of herd size on which entitlement to the aid for skimmed milk intended for use as feed for animals other than young calves depends, where the statement is not more than 10 days late, applies retroactively not only to applications for aid on which no decision has yet been given but also to claims for repayment of the aid which have not yet been settled, since the issue of lack of proportionality which that amendment is designed to remedy arises in the same manner in both cases.
3. Loss of the entire amount of special aid for skimmed milk for use as feed for animals other than young calves where the period prescribed by Article 4 of Regulation No 2793/77 for the submission of the statement of herd size is exceeded by more than 10 days is not contrary to the requirements imposed by observance of the principle of proportionality .
4.Article 4(1)(b ) of Regulation No 2793/77 and Article 1(3 ) of Regulation No 1438/79 amending Regulation No 2793/77 for the fourth time must be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking to be given by a farmer who has a specialized holding in order to qualify for aid for skimmed milk for use as feed for animals other than young calves entails the obligation to forward a statement of the size of his herd to the dairy every quarter until such time as the Member State concerned has chosen, in accordance with the option available to it after 1 January 1980, whether to require a quarterly statement or an annual statement of the average size of the herd .
R-345/88, [1990] EUECJ R-345/88
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215748
R-215/88, [1989] EUECJ R-215/88
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215709
Additional levy on milk.
R-120/86, [1988] EUECJ R-120/86
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215588
ECJ 1. The rules of the common organization of the market set up by Regulation No 1035/72 must be applied to fruit and vegetables coming within the scope of that organization, irrespective of the use to which they are ultimately to be put . The fact that they are intended for processing does not mean that at the marketing stage they fall within the ambit of Regulation No 516/77 on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables.
2. Regulation No 1035/72 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables, in the version applicable prior to the entry into force of Regulation No 3284/83, must be interpreted as leaving the Member States no power to extend to national producers and processors who are not affiliated to an intertrade organization in the sector the rules adopted by that organization under agreements fixing minimum purchase prices for certain vegetables.
3. The obligation imposed on non-affiliated producers to contribute to the financing of funds established by a producers’ organization in the fruit and vegetables sector is unlawful in so far as it serves to finance activities which are themselves held to be contrary to Community law.
R-212/87, [1988] EUECJ R-212/87
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215648
Agriculture – Common organization of the markets – Cereals – Rice – Production refunds for the use of starch – Conditions for granting such refunds – Use of products derived solely from specified raw materials – Starch obtained partly from other products – Disallowed – Whether legal
Article 6 of Council Regulation No 1009/86 establishing general rules applying to production refunds in the cereals and rice sector empowers the Commission to lay down detailed rules for the application thereof.
In determining the extent of the powers thus conferred by the Council on the Commission, the reference to ‘implementation’ in Article 155 of the Treaty must be interpreted widely ( see judgment of 30 October 1975 in Case 23/75 Rey Soda (( 1975 )) ECR 1279 ); the Commission is authorized to adopt all the measures which are necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the basic legislation, provided that they are not contrary to such legislation or to the implementing legislation adopted by the Council ( see judgment of 15 May 1984 in Case 121/83 Zuckerfabrik Franken (( 1984 )) ECR 2039 ).
Article 4(3 ) of Commission Regulation No 2169/86 laying down detailed rules for the control and payment of the production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors can validly, in the light of Council Regulation No 1009/86 establishing general rules applying to those production refunds, make the grant of such refunds conditional on a declaration by the manufacturer that the starch to be used has not been produced from a raw material other than maize, wheat, rice or potatoes.
In view of the divergences between the Community provisions governing refunds in the various sectors covered by common organizations of the market, and since it is impossible for national authorities using the normal methods of inspection to determine the ratio between the basic products used in the manufacture of certain goods obtained partly from cereal or rice starch and partly from sugar-based products, there was a serious risk, which the Commission could legitimately decide to eliminate, that producers might attempt to obtain refunds without due entitlement .
R-13/88, [1989] EUECJ R-13/88
Council Regulation No 1009/86; Commission Regulation No 2169/86 4(3)
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215669
ECJ Legal nature of the security lodged in respect of an export licence.
1. Under community rules such as the second indent of article 38*(1)*(c ) of regulation no 3183/80, which requires the provision of fresh security after the release under special arrangements, before exportation actually takes place and at the request of the exporter, of security intended to ensure the performance by the licence holder of his obligation to export within a prescribed time-limit, where the said time-limit has not been complied with, the fresh security ceases to be a guarantee and becomes a penalty when the undertaking has not been complied with and no longer can be complied with.
However, that penalty, which is intended to achieve the same objective as the security itself and whose only effect is to place the defaulting trader in the same position as if he had not voluntarily opted for advance release of the security, is an integral part of the system of security at issue and is not criminal in nature.
2. The forfeiture of two securities relating to the same export transactions but having different purposes, one intended to ensure repayment of the export refund paid in advance if exportation does not take place and the other intended to ensure that the undertaking to export during the validity of the export licence will be honoured, even if it is triggered by the same event, cannot be regarded as disproportionate if the different risks in respect of which the securities were lodged actually materialize.
R-137/85, [1987] EUECJ R-137/85
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215538
R-58/86, [1987] EUECJ R-58/86
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215486
ECJ When fixing monetary compensatory amounts, the commission must not only act to prevent disturbances to normal trade caused by the monetary measures adopted by the member states but also see to it that the compensatory amounts themselves are not so constituted as to provoke such disturbances or to create market conditions favourable to the formation of artificial trade flows. It is therefore not only empowered but under a duty to amend its existing legislation if it finds that improper transactions of the type described above have occurred or that there is a risk that they may occur.
In its choice of the measures to be adopted, the commission must be allowed a broad measure of discretion where the product concerned is of very limited importance for trade within the community and with non-member countries and where, furthermore, it occurs in two forms which are administratively difficult to distinguish, one of which is devoid of commercial value while the other is perfectly capable of being processed and reprocessed in a closed circuit without ever reaching the stage of final consumption.
R-208/84, [1985] EUECJ R-208/84
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215399
ECJ 1. The first sentence of article 7 of Regulation no 2527/80, according to which no device is to be used by means of which the mesh in any part of a fishing net is obstructed or otherwise effectively diminished, is an independent and perfectly clear provision, creating a prohibition with immediate effect which cannot depend upon the adoption of the detailed implementing rules provided for in the second sentence of the said provision.
2. Since the expiry on 1 january 1979 of the transitional period provided for in article 102 of the act of accession the power to adopt, as part of the common fisheries policy, measures to conserve the resources of the sea vests fully and finally in the community.
3. It is clear from the purpose and terms of article 7 of regulation no 2527/80 that the entire provision must have immediate effect, including the permission to use devices for the protection of nets the use of which appears to be compatible with the prohibition of the use of any device by means of which the mesh in any part of a fishing net is obstructed or otherwise effectively diminished.
In the absence of detailed implementing rules adopted by the community to give formal expression to that permission, it is for the competent courts to fill the resulting lacuna in a manner which is consistent with the aim of protecting fishing stocks and which also takes into account the fact that protection of fishing nets should be permitted.
R-87/82, [1983] EUECJ R-87/82
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215159
Agriculture – common organization of the markets – milk and milk products – special aid for the denaturing of skimmed-milk powder intended for feed for animals other than young calves – denaturing not carried out in conformity with community provisions – loss of the benefit of the aid in its entirety – principle of proportionality – breach – none.
(Commission Regulation (EEC) no 1844/77)
In view of the fact that the special aid granted for the denaturing of skimmed-milk powder intended for feed for animals other than young calves is considerably higher than the amount granted in the case of feed for calves, and in view of the risk that it might be used for other, unauthorized purposes where the denaturing departs even to a slight extent from the method referred to in Regulation no 1844/77, the commission was legally justified in adopting provisions which entail witholding of the aid and loss of the security for failure to fulfil the obligation to carry out denaturing laid down by the regulation and was not obliged to vary the severity of the measure in question according to the gravity of the failure to comply with the obligation. Such a measure cannot be regarded as out of proportion to the objective pursued and the fact that the denaturing departs even to a slight extent from the above-mentioned method is capable of depriving the trader of the entire benefit of the special aid.
R-272/81, [1982] EUECJ R-272/81
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215132
R-84/81, [1982] EUECJ R-84/81
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215076
National charge on agricultural products of national origin.
R-71/80, [1981] EUECJ R-71/80
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214977
Common organization of the market in cereals – Threshold price of durum wheat.
[1981] ECR 3211, [1981] EUECJ C-247/80
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215026
Proceedings were taken to require Mr Salumi and others to pay additional sums as levies on imports of agricultural products, on the basis that the earlier lower levy had been applied in error. Subsequently an EU regulation was enacted and the European Court interpreted the Italian court’s question as asking in substance whether that regulation applied to payments of duties made before the date the regulation came into force. HELD: ‘Although procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, this is not the case with substantive rules. On the contrary, the latter are usually interpreted as applying to situations existing before the entry into force only insofar as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such an effect must be given to them.
This interpretation ensures respect for the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectation, by virtue of which the effect of Community legislation must be clear and predictable for those who are subject to it. The Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of those principles . . that in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from the point in time before its publication and that it may be otherwise only exceptionally, where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected.’
The regulation in question contained both procedural and substantive rules which formed an indivisible whole. The individual provisions should not be considered in isolation with regard to the time at which they take effect. The regulation could not therefore be accorded retroactive effect unless sufficiently clear indications led to such a conclusion. Both the wording and the general scheme of the regulation led to the conclusion that the regulation provided only for the future.
R-128/79, [1980] EUECJ R-128/79
European
Cited – Emerald Supplies Ltd and Others v British Airways Plc ChD 4-Oct-2017
EC has sole jurisdiction over old cartels
Several claimants alleged that the defendant airway had been part of a cartel which had overcharged for freight services. The court now heard arguments about whether it had jurisdition to deal with claims which preceded the measures which had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214891
R-812/79, [1980] EUECJ R-812/79, [1980] ECR 2787
European
Cited – British American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Kazemier Bv SC 28-Oct-2015
One container loaded with cigarettes was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214939
ECJ 1. According to the general conception underlying the common organization of agricultural markets the granting of denaturing premiums provided for in regulations nos 956/68, 2086/68 and 1403/69 on the denaturing of common wheat is subject to a set of common rules which are applicable uniformly throughout the community. However, management of that intervention mechanism is the task of the national intervention agencies, which are required to perform all the supervisory duties necessary in order to ensure that denaturing premiums are granted only in accordance with the conditions laid down by the community rules and that any infringement of the rules of community law by those operating on the market is appropriately penalized.
2. The question within what period a national intervention agency may claim from recipients repayment of premiums wrongly paid in respect of the denaturing of common wheat must, at the present stage in the development of community law, be decided in accordance with the national law of the intervention agency responsible for the relevant sector of the market.
Community law does not prevent the application of provisions or principles of national law the effect of which may be to restrict the period during which such repayment may be claimed, provided always that that question is settled in accordance with the same rules as those which apply to the performance of similar supervisory duties carried out by the national administrative authorities in the spheres in which they have sole responsibility.
R-119/79, [1980] EUECJ R-119/79
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214927
ECJ 1. The Commission regulations adopted between 1 February 1973 and 11 August 1977, fixing monetary compensatory amounts and certain rates necessary for their application, must be regarded as invalid in so far as they fix monetary compensatory amounts in respect of trade in powdered whey and are therefore to that extent contrary to article 1 (2) (b) of Regulation no 974/71 of the council.
2. Disputes relating to the recovery of sums levied on behalf of the community come within the jurisdiction of national courts and must be settled by those courts in application of their national law as regards both procedure and substance to the extent to which community law has not made other provision in the matter. However, the application of national legislation must be effected in a non-discriminatory manner having regard to the procedural rules relating to disputes of the same type, but purely national, and in so far as procedural rules cannot have the result of making impossible in practice the exercise of rights conferred by community law.
In these circumstances and in the absence of community provisions it is for the national authorities to decide as to the recovery of sums unduly charged on the basis of community regulations which have been declared invalid and to settle in terms of the national law applicable all ancillary questions such as, on the one hand, whether the fact that it may have been possible for the charge improperly imposed to be passed on to other traders or to consumers should be taken into account, and, on the other hand, the payment of interest, in particular the rate of interest and the date from which interest must be calculated.
C-130/79, R-130/79, [1980] EUECJ R-130/79
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214922
ECJ 1. As regards the division of jurisdiction between national courts and the court of justice under article 177 of the treaty the national court, which is alone in having a direct knowledge of the facts of the case and of the arguments put forward by the parties, and which has to give judgment in the case, is in the best position to appreciate, with full knowledge of the matter before it, the relevance of the questions of law raised by the dispute before it and the necessity for a preliminary ruling so as to enable it to give judgement.
In the event of questions ‘ having been improperly formulated or going beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the court of justice by article 177, the court is free to extract from all the factors provided by the national court and in particular from the statement of grounds contained in the reference, the elements of community law which, having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute, require an interpretation or, as the case may be, an assessment of validity.
2. It follows from article 38(2) of the EEC Treaty that the provisions of the Treaty relating to the common agricultural policy have precedence, in case of any discrepancy, over the rules relating to the establishment of the common market. The specific provisions creating a common organization of the market have precedence in the sector in question over the system laid down in article 37 in favour of state monopolies of a commercial character.
3. Once the community has, pursuant to article 40 of the treaty, legislated for the establishment of the common organization of the market in a given sector, member states are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it.
4. The common organizations of the agricultural markets are based on the concept of the open market to which every producer has free access and the functioning of which is regulated solely by the instruments provided for by those organizations.
Any provisions or national practices which might alter the pattern of imports or exports or influence the formation of market prices by preventing producers from buying and selling freely within the state in which they are established, or in any other member state, in conditions laid down by community rules and from taking advantage directly of intervention measures or any other measures for regulating the market laid down by the common organization are incompatible with the principles of such organization.
5. The provisions of articles 30 and 34 of the eec treaty and of regulation no 2759/75 are directly applicable and confer on individuals rights which the courts of member states must protect. As regards the new member states, the effects of those provisions applied, according to the terms of the act of accession and in particular of articles 2, 42 and 60(1) thereof, as from 1 February 1973.
R-83/78, [1978] EUECJ R-83/78, [1978] NI 73
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214774
ECJ 1. The actual right to receive a monetary compensatory amount and the charge resulting from the levying of such an amount are only created by the performance of the import or export transaction as the case may be and only from the moment when that transaction takes place. It follows that in the absence of an express provision to the contrary the amounts to be paid or levied are those fixed by the rules in force at the moment of the import or export whatever may be the date on which the contract relating to the transaction in question was concluded.
2. Having regard to the recitals to and the provisions of regulation no 2405/76 and to the special circumstances existing at the time of its adoption it could not arouse in the minds of persons concerned a legitimate expectation, which the commission was required to protect, of its maintenance for the whole of the week in question.
R-146/77, [1978] EUECJ R-146/77
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214744
C-21/77, [1978] EUECJ C-21/77
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214728
ECJ Export refunds to third countries may under regulation no 171/64 of the commission of 30 October 1964 be granted for compound animal feeding-stuffs containing either cereals or cereal-based products or milk or milk products. Having regard to the objectives of the system of export refunds, an export refund for a compound animal feeding-stuff containing cereals or cereal-based products can be granted under regulation no 166/64 of the council of 30 October 1964 and regulation no 171/64 of the commission only where cereals or products to which regulation no 19 of the council of 4 April 1962 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the markets in cereals applies are in fact contained in the mixture in significant proportions.
ECJ 1. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – compound feeding-stuffs for cattle – export to third countries – refund – grant – conditions – application to compound feeding-stuffs not containing powdered milk – (Regulation no 171/64 of the commission)
2. Agriculture – common organization of the markets – compound feeding-stuffs for cattle – export to third countries – refund – grant – conditions – composition of the product – minimum content – (Regulation no 166/64 of the council ; regulation no 171/64 of the commission)
1. Export refunds to third countries may under regulation no 171/64 of the commission of 30 october 1964 be granted for compound animal feeding-stuffs containing either cereals or cereal-based products or milk or milk products.
2. Having regard to the objectives of the system of export refunds , an export refund for a compound animal feeding-stuff containing cereals or cereal-based products can be granted under regulation no 166/64 of the council of 30 october 1964 and regulation no 171/64 of the commission only where cereals or products to which regulation no 19 of the council of 4 april 1962 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the markets in cereals applies are in fact contained in the mixture in significant proportions.
R-125/76, [1977] EUECJ R-125/76, [1977] ECR 1593
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214570
R-106/75, [1976] EUECJ R-106/75
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214478
R-90/75, [1976] EUECJ R-90/75
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214470
ECJ 1. Agriculture – common organization of the market – sugar – sale – maximum prices – unilateral fixing by a member state – prohibition (regulation no 1009/67 of the council)
2. Quantitative restrictions – measures having equivalent effect – concept (EEC treaty, article 30)
3. Agriculture – common organization of the market – sugar – sale – maximum prices – unilateral fixing by a member state – quantitative restrictions – measure having equivalent effect (regulation no 1009/67 of the council, article 35)
4. Measures adopted by an institution – regulation – immediate effects -individual rights – protection (EEC treaty, article 189)
C-65-75, [1976] EUECJ R-65/75
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214468
R-40/72, [1973] EUECJ R-40/72
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214308
1. No new element has been adduced capable of casting doubt on the court’s decision in its judgments of 24 october 1973 in cases 5, 9 and 10/73, according to which examination of questions referred had not revealed any elements capable of affecting the validity of regulation no 974/71.
2. Article 2 of regulation no 974/71, by using the concept of ‘prices’ as its starting point in calculating the compensatory amounts, leaves the commission a certain discretion to adopt a reference price which differs from the c.I.F. Price, even if it differs from the contract prices actually fixed for commercial transactions.
3. It is within the commission’s legal powers, when enacting detailed rules for the implementation of a system, such as that laid down by regulation no 974/71 for compensatory amounts, to have regard to certain imperative requirements of an administrative nature.
This is even more so as these detailed rules are established in accordance with the so-called ‘management committee’ procedure.
R-154/73, [1974] EUECJ R-154/73
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214364
R-142/73, [1973] EUECJ R-142/73
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214354
R-94/71, [1972] EUECJ R-94/71
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214170
ECJ A tax imposed on the importation of products from third countries does not constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of article 12(2) of Regulation no 13/64 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the markets in milk and milk products when it is imposed as a charge under the national system of turnover tax.
R-7/67, [1968] EUECJ R-7/67
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214071
ECJ The provisions of Article 226 are applicable to agricultural products.
The insertion of special safeguarding clauses in agricultural regulations does not affect the scope of that article.
The Commission retains the power to authorize on the basis of article 226 the protective measures necessary to remedy economic difficulties in the agricultural sector of a member state, even if an agricultural regulation prescribes specific measures applicable to cases of the same nature.
R-37/70, [1971] EUECJ R-37/70
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214126
ECJ Non-contractual liability – Milk producers – Non-marketing undertaking – Exclusion from milk quota scheme – Compensation – Substitution – Flat-rate compensation by contract – Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 – Relevant jurisdiction – Applicable law
C-82/99, [2001] EUECJ C-82/99
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.214004
[2001] EUECJ T-44/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213956
[2001] EUECJ T-49/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213961
ECJ Action for annulment – Commission Decision 98/653/EC – Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal – Natural or legal persons – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Admissibility
[2001] EUECJ T-47/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213959
ECJ Action for annulment – Commission Decision 98/653/EC – Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal – Natural or legal persons – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Admissibility
[2001] EUECJ T-41/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213953
[2001] EUECJ T-48/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213960
eCJ Action for annulment – Commission Decision 98/653/EC – Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal – Natural or legal persons – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Admissibility
[2001] EUECJ T-42/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213954
ECJ Action for annulment – Commission Decision 98/653/EC – Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal – Natural or legal persons – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Admissibility
[2001] EUECJ T-45/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213957
ECJ Action for annulment – Commission Decision 98/653/EC – Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal – Natural or legal persons – Act of direct and individual concern to them – Admissibility
[2001] EUECJ T-39/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213951
[2001] EUECJ T-50/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213962
[2001] EUECJ T-46/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213958
[2001] EUECJ T-40/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213952
[2001] EUECJ T-43/99
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213955
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers
C-491/00, [2004] EUECJ C-491/00
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213784
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers
C-482/00, [2004] EUECJ C-482/00
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213780
Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional levy on milk – Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 – Reference quantities – Ex post correction – Notification of producers
C-489/00, [2004] EUECJ C-489/00
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.213782
